EN BANC

[G.R. No. 97381. November 5, 1992.]

BENIGNO V. MAGPALE, JR. , petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION and ROGELIO A. DAYAN, in his capacity as the
General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority , respondents.

Abad, Bautista & Associates for petitioner.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; APPEALS; PHRASE

"PARTY ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY DECISION" REFERS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
AGAINST WHOM ADMINISTRATIVE CASE IS FILED. — After Mendez vs. Civil Service
Commission, (204 SCRA 965 [1991]), the extent of the authority of respondent CSC to
review the decisions of the MSPB is now a settled matter. The Court, in said case held:
"The phrase 'party adversely affected by the decision' refers to the government
employee against whom the administrative case is led for the purpose of disciplinary
action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer,
removal or dismissal from o ce . . . By inference or implication, the remedy of appeal
may be availed of only in a case where the respondent is found guilty of the charges
led against him. But when the respondent is exonerated of said charges, as in this
case, there is, no occasion for appeal." (pp. 967-968).
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITES. — While it is true, as contended by respondent
Civil Service Commission that under Section 12 (par. 11), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Book V
of Executive Order 292, the CSC does have the power to — "Hear and decide
administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including
contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its o ces and of the
agencies attached to it . . ." the exercise of the power is quali ed by and should be read
together with the other sections of the same sub-title and book of Executive Order 292,
particularly Section 49 which prescribes the following requisites for the exercise of the
power of appeal, to wit: (a) the decision must be appealable; (b) the appeal must be
made by the party adversely affected by the decision; (c) the appeal must be made
within fteen days from receipt of the decision, unless a petition for reconsideration is
seasonably led; and (d) the notice of appeal must be led with the disciplining o ce,
which shall forward the records of the case, together with the notice of appeal to the
appellate authority within fteen days from ling of the notice of appeal, with its
comments, if any.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASES THAT MAY BE APPEALED TO CSC; CASE AT BAR. —
Under Section 47 of the same Code, the CSC shall decide on appeal all administrative
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of: (a) a penalty of suspension for more than
thirty days; or (b) ne in an amount exceeding thirty days salary; or (c) demotion in rank
or salary or transfer; or (d) removal or dismissal from o ce. The February 5, 1990
decision of the MSPB did not involve dismissal or separation from o ce, rather, the
decision exonerated petitioner and ordered him reinstated to his former position.
Consequently, in the light of our pronouncements in the aforecited cases of Mendez vs.
Civil Service Commission and Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission, the MSPB decision
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 was not a proper subject of appeal to the CSC.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES EXERCISING
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MUST BE CONFERRED BY LAW. — Settled is the rule that a
tribunal, board, or o cer exercising judicial functions acts without jurisdiction if no
authority has been conferred by law to hear and decide the case. (Acena v. Civil Service
Commission, 193 SCRA 623 [1991]).

DECISION

MELO , J : p

Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing Resolution No. 90-962

dated October 19, 1990 of respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC). Said CSC
resolution set aside and modi ed the decision dated February 5, 1990 of the Merit
Systems Protection Board in MSPB Case No. 449, which ordered the immediate
reinstatement in the service of herein petitioner Benigno V. Magpale, Jr., without loss of
seniority rights and with payment of back salaries and other emoluments to which he is
entitled under the law. LLphil

The record shows that petitioner started his career in government as an

employee in the Presidential Assistance on Community Development in 1960. Fifteen
years later, or in 1975, he transferred to the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) as Arrastre
Superintendent. He was promoted to the position of Port Manager in 1977 of the Port
Management Unit (PMU), General Santos City. Then he was reassigned, in the same
year, to PPA-PMU, Tacloban City where he likewise discharges the functions of Port
Manager. On December 1, 1982, the PPA General Manager designated Atty. William A.
Enriquez as o cer-in-charge of PPA-PMU, Tacloban City effective December 6, 1982.
On January 6, 1983, petitioner was ordered to immediately report to the Assistant
General Manager (AGM) for Operations, PPA, Manila. Petitioner reported at PPA, Manila
on the same date and performed the duties and functions assigned to him.
In an Internal Control Department Report dated March 5, 1984, the PMU-
Tacloban Inventory Committee and the Commission on Audit (COA) stated that
petitioner failed to account for equipment of PPA valued at P65,542.25 and to liquidate
cash advances amounting to P130,069.61. He was found also to have incurred
unauthorized absence from May 25, 1984 to July 23, 1984.
On July 23, 1984, or nineteen months after he began reporting in Manila, a formal
charge for Dishonesty, Pursuit of Private Business without permission as required by
Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Frequent and Unauthorized Absences and Neglect
of Duty was led against petitioner. Based on said charges, he was ordered
preventively suspended and has been out of service since then.
For almost four years, the case remained unacted upon. The formal investigation
and hearing resumed on September 18, 1987.
On January 18, 1989, a Decision was rendered by the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), through its Administrative
Action Board, nding petitioner guilty of Gross Negligence on two counts: (a) for his
failure to account for the forty-four (44) assorted units of equipment, among them a
Sony Betamax, and a TV Camera, and (b) for failing to render the required liquidation of
his cash advances amounting to P44,877.00 for a period of four years. Petitioner was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 also found guilty of frequent and unauthorized absences. Accordingly, he was meted
the penalty of dismissal from the service with the corresponding accessory penalties. prLL

When petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision was

denied in the DOTC's Order of February 20, 1989, he appealed to the Merit Systems and
Protection Board (MSPB) of respondent Civil Service Commission.
On February 5, 1990, the MSPB rendered a Decision reversing the Decision of the
DOTC. The pertinent portion of the MSPB'S Decision reads:
"After a careful review of the records of the case, this Board found the appeal
meritorious. Respondent cannot be held liable for Gross Negligence for his
alleged failure to account for several properties and for failure to liquidate the
cash advances he received as there was no showing that he has been specifically
required to do so either by law or regulation. The mere detail of respondent to
PPA-Manila, in the absence of an order requiring him to turn over and account for
the funds and property received for his office at PMU-Tacloban will not
necessarily obligate him to make accounting for the same.
Moreover, Section 105, Chapter 5 of Presidential Decree 1445, otherwise known
as `The Government Auditing Code of the Philippines', measured the liability of an
officer accountable for government property only to the money value of said
property. Though respondent is the person primarily liable for these funds and
property, he holds this liability jointly with the person who has the actual
possession thereof and who has the immediate responsibility for their
safekeeping.

As to the charge relative to respondent's frequent unauthorized absences had

been sufficiently and convincingly explained, due to which the Board found him
not at all guilty of the offense charged (sic).

IN VIEW THEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. Respondent-

Appellant Magpale should immediately be reinstated in the service without loss of
seniority rights and with payment of back salaries and other emoluments to
which he is entitled under the law." (pp. 31-32, Rollo.)

On March 1, 1990, PPA, through its General Manager, herein respondent Rogelio
A. Dayan, led an appeal with the Civil Service Field O ce-PPA, and the latter o ce
indorsed the appeal to respondent CSC in a letter dated March 5, 1990.
On March 5, 1990, petitioner requested the Secretary of the DOTC to direct the
PPA to implement the MSPB decision as it has become nal and executory. Said
request was reiterated in another letter also dated March 5, 1990 by petitioner to OIC
Wilfredo M. Trinidad of the O ce of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and
Legal Affairs, DOTC. LLphil

On March 13, 1990, petitioner led with the MSPB a Motion for Implementation
of the MSPB decision. This was opposed by the PPA through its General Manager.
On April 27, 1990, petitioner led with respondent CSC his comment to the
appeal of the PPA contending that he is not an accountable o cer and is under no
obligation to account for the property and equipment; that said property and
equipment were not received by him as custodian and he should not be held liable for
the loss of the same; that the said property and equipment were placed in PPA-PMU
Tacloban City which the herein petitioner left on October 8, 1982 and since then had
lost control over them. Moreover, petitioner averred that as to the unliquidated cash
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 advances of P44,877.00, the same had long been liquidated. Finally, petitioner claimed
that his failure to secure the clearance for any possible property or nancial obligation
in PMU-Tacloban was due to the urgency of his transfer to PPA-Manila and the absence
of any order or demand to secure the clearance.

On May 29, 1990, the MSPB issued an Order for the immediate implementation
of its February 5, 1990 Decision, ruling that:
"Records further show that a copy of this Board's decision was received by the
Office of the Honorable Secretary, that Department, thru Mr. Frankie Tampus on
February 6, 1990. Records finally show that as of March 5, 1990, no motion for
reconsideration of this Board's aforementioned decision has ever been filed as
evidenced by the certification of even date issued and signed by Director Adelaida
C. Montero of the Office for Central Personnel Records, this Commission. Hence,
said decision has long become final and executory". (p. 34, Rollo.)

On June 28, 1990, petitioner led a Motion to Dismiss the appeal of PPA
claiming that:
"1. Appeal of PPA was filed out of time and that the CSC has no jurisdiction
over it;

2. The PPA has not exhausted administrative remedies before appealing to

the higher body, the CSC;

3. The MSPB decision has become final and therefore cannot be disturbed
anymore.
(p. 22, Rollo.)

On October 19, 1990, respondent CSC rendered its now assailed Resolution No.
90-962, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
"The Commission thus holds respondent Magpale guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty
on two (2) counts for his failure to account for the forty-four (44) equipments (sic)
under his charge and to render an accounting for cash advances amounting to
P44,877.90. Accordingly, considering two mitigating circumstances of length of
service and first offense in favor of respondent, the commission hereby imposes
a penalty of suspension for a period of one (1) year against him. As he has been
out of the service since 1984, the penalty is deemed served and he should now be
reinstated to his former position. This is, however, without prejudice to any
criminal or civil proceedings that the agency concerned or the COA may institute
as proper under the premises.
Finally, the decision of the MSPB exonerating the respondent Magpale for Gross
Negligence is hereby reversed. Corollarily, the order of payment of back salaries is
hereby set aside. MSPB is likewise reminded to be more circumspect on matters
of this nature, especially as the instant case involves accountability of public
funds and property. cdphil

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission finds respondent

Benigno V. Magpale, Jr., guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty on two (2) counts for
failure to account for the forty-four (44) equipments (sic) under his charge and to
render an accounting for cash advance amounting to P44,877.90. In view of the
attendant mitigating circumstances of length of service and first offense in favor
of respondent and the Neglect of Duty to account for cash advance in the amount
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 of P44,877.90 (second count) be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance,
the penalty of suspension for one (1) year shall be imposed against respondent.
This shall be without prejudice to any criminal or civil proceedings that PPA or
COA may institute against respondent. Accordingly, the Decision and Order of
MSPB dated February 5, 1990 and May 23, 1990, respectively, are hereby set
aside ". (pp. 27-28, Rollo.)

Hence, the present recourse.

The petition alleges that respondent CSC, in issuing its Resolution No. 90-962,
gravely abused its discretion because:
"1. The law did not authorize an appeal by the government from an adverse
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
2. Respondent PPA General Manager did not have the right or legal
personality to appeal from the MSPB decision;
3. Assuming that the appeal was available to respondent DAYAN, the same
was filed out of time after the MSPB decision had long become final and
executory." (pp. 6-7, Petition; pp. 7-8, Rollo.)

In support of his rst contention, petitioner invokes Paragraph 2(a), Section 16,
Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987 which provides:
"SECTION 16. Offices in the Commission. — The Commission shall have the
following offices:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) The Merit Systems Protection Board composed of a Chairman and two (2)
members shall have the following functions:
(a) Hear and decide on appeal administrative cases involving
officials and employees of the Civil Service. Its decision shall be final
except those involving dismissal or separation from the service which may
be appealed to the Commission." (Emphasis supplied.).

claiming that since the MSPB decision was not for dismissal or separation from the
service, but reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and with payment of back
salaries, the said MSPB decision should be deemed nal, immediately executory and
unappealable. llcd

Petitioner next contends that assuming, for the sake of argument. that the
decision of the MSPB was appealable, respondent Dayan, even in his capacity as
General Manager of the PPA, did not have the legal personality nor the right to appeal
the decision of the MSPB, citing paragraph 1, Section 49, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I,
Book V, of Executive Order No. 292 and the case of Paredes vs. CSC, G.R. No. 88177,
December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 84.
Assuming further that the MSPB decision was appealable and that respondent
Dayan had the legal personality to appeal the MSPB decision, petitioner still contends
that the appeal should not have been given due course by the respondent CSC because
the appeal was not led with the proper disciplining o ce in accordance with same
Section 49 of Executive Order No. 292, which, in this case, should be the DOTC, not with
the CSC Field Office at the PPA.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 On the merit of the petition, petitioner claims that assuming even further that an
appeal lies from the MSPB decision, that respondent Dayan had the legal personality or
standing to institute the appeal and that it was led with the proper o ce, still CSC
Resolution 90-962 was rendered with grave abuse of discretion because petitioner
cannot be suspended for alleged failure to account for pieces of equipment and cash
advances since this is not the neglect of duty contemplated by Section 36 of
Presidential Decree No. 807 or Section 46 of the chapter on the Civil Service in
Executive Order 292. At most, petitioner can be held liable for the money value of the
equipment and advances as mandated by Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1445,
the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
For its part, respondent CSC maintains —
First, that the nality of the MSPB decision in disciplinary cases as stated in
Section 16, Paragraph 2(a), Book V of Executive Order No. 292, relied upon by
petitioner, is modi ed by Section 12, Paragraph 11, Book V, of the same Executive
Order No. 292, which reads:
"SECTION 12. Powers and Functions. — The Commission shall have the
following powers and functions:
xxx xxx xxx
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought directly or
on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions
of its offices and of the agencies attached to it."

Furthermore, relevant provisions of Executive Order No. 135 dated February 25,
1987 amending Section 19(b) of Presidential Decree No. 807 and Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 1409 state, thus: Cdpr

"WHEREAS, in the interest of justice, there is a need to confer upon the Civil
Service Commission jurisdiction over appeal in contested or provisional
appointments and to make its decision thereon, as well as in administrative
disciplinary cases final and reviewable by the Supreme Court.
xxx xxx xxx
Relationship with the Civil Service Commission. — The Commission shall hear
and decide appeals from other decisions of the Board provided that the decisions
of the Commission shall be subject to review on certiorari only upon receipt of a
copy thereof by the aggrieved party."

Thus, respondent CSC argues that it is deemed not to have lost its appellate
jurisdiction over the decisions of the MSPB in administrative disciplinary cases.
Second, the case of Paredes v. CSC is not applicable. Respondent Dayan
appealed the MSPB decision not in his personal capacity nor in pursuit of his private
interest, but as held of the PPA, being the general manager thereof.
Third, the appeal was led with the proper disciplining o ce because the
decision appealed from was that of the MSPB, one of the o ces in respondent CSC.
Thus, respondent CSC was justi ed in giving due course to PPA's notice of appeal led
with its (CSC) Field Office at the PPA.
Finally, petitioner's claim that he is liable only for the money value of the property
and cash advances and cannot be administratively charged for such infraction is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 untenable and a mockery of the civil service law. For his failure to account for the
property under his charge and to liquidate his cash advances, petitioner is guilty of
Gross Neglect of Duty and should have been dismissed from the service if no
mitigating circumstances were considered in his favor.
We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to le their
respective memoranda. After considering the same and the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, We find that the petition must be granted.
After Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, (204 SCRA 965 [1991]), the extent of
the authority of respondent CSC to review the decisions of the MSPB is now a settled
matter.
The Court, in said case held:
"It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provision of law.
(Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Office of the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs,
153 SCRA 318).
A cursory reading of P.D. 807, otherwise known as `The Philippine Civil Service
Law' shows that said law does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating
officers or employees from administrative charges.
Section 37 paragraph (a) thereof, provides:

'The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative

disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for
more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary,
demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office . . .'
(emphasis supplied) (p. 7, Rollo).

Said provision must be read together with Section 39 paragraph (a) of P.D. 805
which contemplates: prcd

'Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely

affected by the decision . . .' (emphasis supplied) (p. 104, Rollo)

The phrase 'party adversely affected by the decision' refers to the government
employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of
disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or
salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office. In the instant case, Coloyan
who filed the appeal cannot be considered an aggrieved party because he is not
the respondent in the administrative case below.
Finally, pursuant to Section 37 paragraph (b) of P.D. 807, the city mayor, as head
of the city government, is empowered to enforce judgment with finality on lesser
penalties like suspension from work for one month and forfeiture of salary
equivalent to one month against erring employees.
By inference or implication, the remedy of appeal may be availed of only in a case
where the respondent is found guilty of the charges filed against him. But when
the respondent is exonerated of said charges, as in this case, there is, no occasion
for appeal." (pp. 967-968).

The above ruling is a reiteration of the earlier pronouncement in Paredes vs. Civil
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Service Commission, (192 SCRA 84 [1990]) cited by petitioner, wherein We said:
"Based on the above provisions of law, appeal to the Civil Service Commission in
an administrative case is extended to the party adversely affected by the decision,
that is, the person or the respondent employee who has been meted out the
penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or fine in an amount exceeding
thirty days salary demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal
from office. The decision of the disciplining authority is even final and not
appealable to the Civil Service Commission in cases where the penalty imposed is
suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty
days salary. Appeal in cases allowed by law must be filed within fifteen days
from receipt of the decision.
Here the MSPB after hearing and the submission of memoranda exonerated
private respondent Amor of all charges except for habitual tardiness. The penalty
was only a reprimand so that even private respondent Amor, the party adversely
affected by the decision, cannot even interpose an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission.
As correctly ruled by private respondent, petitioner Paredes the complainant is not
the party adversely affected by the decision so that she has no legal personality
to interpose an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. In an administrative case,
the complainant is a mere witness (Gonzalo v. D. Roda, 64 SCRA 120). Even if she
is the Head of the Administrative Services Department of the HSRC as a
complainant she is merely a witness for the government in an administrative
case. No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the offense is
committed against the government." (pp. 98-99). prcd

While it is true, as contended by respondent Civil Service Commission that under

Section 12 (par. 11), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Book V of Executive Order 292, the CSC does
have the power to —
"Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or
on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions
of its offices and of the agencies attached to it . . ."

the exercise of the power is quali ed by and should be read together with the other
sections of the same sub-title and book of Executive Order 292, particularly Section 49
which prescribes the following requisites for the exercise of the power of appeal, to wit:
(a) the decision must be appealable;
(b) the appeal must be made by the party adversely affected by the decision;
(c) the appeal must be made within fifteen days from receipt of the decision,
unless a petition for reconsideration is seasonably filed; and
(d) the notice of appeal must be filed with the disciplining office, which shall
forward the records of the case, together with the notice of appeal to the appellate
authority within fifteen days from filing of the notice of appeal, with its
comments, if any.

Under Section 47 of the same Code, the CSC shall decide on appeal all
administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of: Cdpr

(a) a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 (b) fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary; or
(c) demotion in rank or salary or transfer; or
(d) removal or dismissal from office.

The February 5, 1990 decision of the MSPB did not involve dismissal or
separation from o ce, rather, the decision exonerated petitioner and ordered him
reinstated to his former position. Consequently, in the light of our pronouncements in
the aforecited cases of Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission and Paredes vs. Civil
Service Commission, the MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the CSC.
Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board, or o cer exercising judicial functions
acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred by law to hear and decide
the case. (Acena v. Civil Service Commission, 193 SCRA 623 [1991]).
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Civil Service Commission is hereby ANNULLED
and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dated February
5, 1990 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo and Campos, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Narvasa, C .J . and Medialdea, J ., are on leave.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com